yes you...good post....hard to debate when your intial statement is vague, and you have not given a reference to any article or legislation for me to adequatley respond...LOL

Do not at all agree with your comments on the reserves having spent 8 years in there. It was something that was NOT extended to reservist serving in my time. As to reservists losing income...this too is a falacy in MANY cases. The company I worked for during my reserve time made up the difference in pay if you were short. Many other companies do this for the people serving in the reserves.

You specifically said reservists were losing jobs over seas. Do you have statistics to back this up?

The Bill also provided MANY other benefits to families and disabled veterens. It Also provided small business advantages Veterans who have their own businesses. And on and on....If it were not enough, there would have been pressure from the Veterans to defeat the bill and attempt to get a better one.

Amazing that the Bill I referred to was supported 100% by EVERY member of the house and Senate. Amazing the BI-Partisanship on such a crummy BILL.

I would love to see a link to some facts about the Medical situation. I will reserve comments until I have something to read related to it.

ANd the Pentagon backed down. They did the right thing. This makes the president look bad how? He listened to his constituents.

Your comment on the development of weapons did not refer to nuke development. It was very vague and failed to recognize that weapons development has kept many soldiers and civilians alive during this war. This is something Kerry will have to answer for since he opposed many of the bills that allowed for this technology.

Please, feel free to post a link to some facts about what you are saying about schools. He cut funding specifically to the military? Or to the schools? And how have you come to the conclusion that they are being sent to private schools. I do not have the time to look for information on a vague statement with no links or factual references to know exactly what you are talking about.

Originally posted by Headache in a Suitcase
Homeland security... of all the candidates out there, the only one I trust is Bush.

The homeland is never secure if the first line of response--police and firefighters--is not adequately funded. Local and state governments deliver the lion's share of public services. How can Bush claim to be big on Homeland Security when his budget does not provide enough aid to the cities and states? Those governments suffered cataclysmic losses in revenue during the last recession, and still not seeing the effects of the improving economy because state income tax revenues are not rising.

Think about it. If Bush limits federal aid to cities and states (2005 budget cuts aid by 2.5%, adjusting for inflation), it's probable that these governments will make cuts affecting local and state law enforcement--the homeland security in our streets.

A bill that raises benefits for veterans, however inadequately, is
a bill that deserves a YES vote.

I'll discuss the rest later.

If inadequate....why did they pass it. Do you believe that Veterans groups could not raise cain about a Bill and have enough Political clout to A) get someone to vote against it and B) get a better bill.

Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were trained and put there BY THE US GOVERNMENT. They were once on the CIA payroll. They over stepped their bounds, made the US Govt. angry, now were spanking them with bombs.

Mr. Hussein was put there by the US Governement? I suggestyou get a book on Iraq History. This is not true. He got himself in power.

1) No Child Left Behind......Not properly funded....and an unrealistic expectation that children with learning disabilities and title one will make the same progress as kids without.

2) In my opinion, he broke international law by invading Iraq. I supported this because I believed they would not risk such action unless they were sure that there was WMD. Since they have not, and in my opinion, damaged the reputation of our intelligence services and our diplomatic services by acting in such a manner. I still believe that the US does not have to have international approval to defend itself and its interests but the next timesomeone does this, they had better be damn sure that they have proof before they act.

3) Immigration. I cannot stand the thought that illegals were given amnesty. Instead of increasing boarder security and funding to get rid of people who havce no LEGAL right to be in this country is troubling. Especially after 9/11 it demonstrates to me that we TRULY have no boarder control.

4) Container security is NO BETTER than prior to 9/11. Connex boxes are NOT adequately searched before they come into our harbors. It is on his agenda for his re-election campain....it should have been taken care of before now.

5) The Campaign reform bill....it is one of the suckiest bills ever. McCain is suddenly wakingup to the fact that it just added a middle man for campaign $$$ and is not changing anything. He was pissed off when I saw him speak on it recently.

6) The Congress is spending out of control and he has done NOTHING to restrain it.

7) The surplus is GONE. Give me a lock box.

8) Faith Based initialtives. I think this is terrible. My TAX $$ should never be given to religuious groups for any purpose. In my opinioin this violates the intent of the constitution. It favors religious groups over others that may be more prepared to deal with issues like aids in Africa.

9) Increasing MONEY to train nurses and doctors to preach abstinence. I am sorry I was a teenager....you need to be realistic. This is MONEY down the drain.

If inadequate....why did they pass it. Do you believe that Veterans groups could not raise cain about a Bill and have enough Political clout to A) get someone to vote against it and B) get a better bill.

Let me clarify: veterans groups are raising Cain about the Bush's budget proposal. He proposes to raise veterans' benefits by an unsatisfactory amount, not enough to cover inflation and rising health care costs. The Veterans Benefits Act is a GOOD bill, but the bulk of veterans benefits ($28 billion for 2004 alone) still comes from the congressional budget. Veterans Benefit Act GUARANTEES $1 billion in benefits over the NEXT 10 YEARS, and no one should vote against that. There's no guarantee on the budget however, and any bill that can cushion whatever negative impact the budget may have is a good thing. That's why there was unanimous support for this bill.

Quote:

As to reservists losing income...this too is a falacy in MANY cases

41% of reservists loses an average of $1700 in an average 4 months of service. Many fortune 500 companies are compensating for lost income, but healthcare professionals and self-employed people are still not compensated. An extended time of service means even more lost income.

Quote:

You specifically said reservists were losing jobs over seas. Do you have statistics to back this up?

There are no hard statistics yet, but you know for a fact that many companies have laid off employees or are "outsourcing" their jobs. I'm certain that hundreds of reservists have come back to find that their job is gone, even if the federal gov't guarantees it.

Money/ICR poll shows that Democrat has narrow edge over Bush; health care seen as top issue.
February 29, 2004: 11:59 AM EST

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - The nation's investors give Democratic presidential contender John Kerry a slight edge over President Bush, according to a new poll that also shows health care costs and deficit reduction are investors' most pressing concerns.

A poll conducted by Money magazine and International Communications Research (IRC) shows 41 percent of the investors surveyed favor the senator from Massachusetts, while 40 percent favor the president.

"We think investor households -- which may account for as many as 125 million Americans -- are absolutely worth watching, not least because they might surprise us this year," said Money magazine's Managing Editor Bob Safian.

The Money/ICR poll also says the so-called "investor class" feels that containing health care costs and the deficit are far more pressing economic concerns for the country than cutting taxes.

"We've found that the most affluent investors -- the only segment where a majority says they're better off than they were a year ago -- also tell us in great numbers that they are much more worried about the deficit and paying for their health care than they are about tax cuts," he added.

A resounding 44 percent of investors polled say containing health care costs is the nation's most pressing economic concern. Controlling the deficit slid in at No. 2 with 30 percent of those polled while cutting taxes finished with 11 percent.

Paying for their own healthcare, the poll suggests, is investors' biggest personal concern. Fifty-five percent of all investors, ranging from households making less than $25,000 to those making $75,000 or more, agree that paying for health care is much more worrisome than losing their jobs, paying their debt or losing money in the market.

The mounting deficit is particularly worrisome to more affluent investors. Thirty-two percent of middle-class investors, or households with an income between $50,000 to $75,000, and 35 percent of affluent investors, or those with incomes over $75,000, picked deficit control as the most pressing issue.

Overall, 40 percent of investors say their personal financial situation is better than it was a year ago, 17 percent report they are worse off, and 42 percent say that their situation is about the same.

Only among the most affluent group of investors -- those with a household income of $75,000 or more -- did a slight majority of 53 percent report that they are better off than they were a year ago.

"Investors" for the ICR study were defined as anyone who said yes to the following question: "Do you have or own stocks, mutual funds, bonds, a 401(k) account or an Individual Retirement Account (IRA)?"

The Money/ICR poll was conducted with a nationwide sample of 556 male and female investors and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.08 percent.

Originally posted by nbcrusader
Is this comment based on your analysis of homeland defense priorities, or the never ending cry for more funding?
You criticize GWB for spending too much, then not spending enough.

I did mention his $520 billion deficit spending proposal. If you would take notice of the topic of this thread, it reads "Why Republicans should not vote Bush." If you are a Republican, you would know that Republicans believe in fiscal responsibility and smaller government--resulting in leaner budgets. I'm trying to appeal to conservative sensibilities here.

Besides, I personally NEVER said that he spent too much. The difference between Democratic and Republican presidents is that Democrats brag about their big government spending while Republicans lie about it---on the Meet the Press interview recently, Bush says he actually LOWERED discretionary spending.

Quote:

From Meet the Press, 2/8/04
Russert: But your base conservatives -- and listen to Rush Limbaugh, the Heritage Foundation, CATO Institute, they're all saying you are the biggest spender in American history.

President Bush: Well, they're wrong.

Russert: Mr. President--

President Bush: If you look at the appropriations bills that were passed under my watch, in the last year of President Clinton, discretionary spending was up 15 percent, and ours have steadily declined.

It is Bush who is confused here: lowering taxes but increasing spending, protecting the homeland but ignoring the cities, taking pride in the military but ignoring the needs of veterans and reservists, wanting job market recovery but refusing to re-examine trade agreements.

Next time, instead of trying to speak down to me, why don't you come up with a defense of Bush's policies? On the day of reckoning, Bush will be wishing that he listened to that "never ending cry for more funding."

Originally posted by GibsonExplorer
Next time, instead of trying to speak down to me, why don't you come up with a defense of Bush's policies? On the day of reckoning, Bush will be wishing that he listened to that "never ending cry for more funding."

I think you need to reload. I would venture that most here do not think NB speaks down to anyone. It is clear you have a lot to contribute to the forum but

[Q]Is this comment based on your analysis of homeland defense priorities, or the never ending cry for more funding?
You criticize GWB for spending too much, then not spending enough.[/Q]

Is not talking down. It is basically wondering the same thing I have....which is.....where is the beef. Provide a link or two so that we can understand where you are coming from. As I said before, I found your initial post vague. You have provided numnbers IE about reservist, fortune 500, and the like..Just curious where I can read the info to respond. I do not doubt you, but I have been in here long enough and posting in here long enough to know that people say things which may be partially accurate, but not quite in context of where the info is coming from.